bit-gamer.net

Microsoft: We invented avatars

Microsoft: We invented avatars

The New Xbox Experience will add in new 3D human avatars for each player. Another great invention from Mattrick!

Microsoft's Don Mattrick is still adamant that he invented in-game avatars, not Nintendo. In a recent interview with Official Xbox Magazine, Mattrick reasserts his claim that he was the first person to invent controllable 3D human avatars.

Personally, we're not only skeptical but also kind of bored by the whole argument, but hey-ho.

"I'm claiming to have invented avatars! I did 4D Sports Boxing! Do you know what 4D Boxing was? Hey, you should be writing this! That was me," said Mattrick.

"C'mon! It's human, it's in 3D, it has a face - it was genuinely the first time there was something human-shaped in 3D! Look it up!"

Mattrick of course is so caught up on the issue because of the launch of the New Xbox Experience, which will feature 3D human avatars very prominently, but is seen by many as a clone of Nintendo's Mii service. Mattrick, thinks differently and even claims that he can trace his idea back to when he worked at EA.

"I worked at EA and helped pushed the concept with a few games you might have heard of - this one called The Sims - you ever hear of that? That had a few sort of 3D characters in it! Then a little one called Ultima Online, know that one?"

Mattrick later goes on in the interview to claim that Microsoft has already won the online side of this generation, saying that other companies are only just starting to catch up with where the Xbox 360 was in 2002.

"Microsoft started out with the idea of identity, Achievements and billing. It was funny, actually. There's one competitor, who I won't name, that I think we should send a card and a cake, because they're only just getting to where we were in 2002," he said. "We're the ones who really brought innovation to the online space."

Who do you think is the real online winner in this generation? Let us know in the forums.

36 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
shigllgetcha 10th November 2008, 11:06 Quote
so microsoft invented the Mii

lol so nintendo are copying microsoft even though microsoft are rolling it out is it two years later:):)
crazy people are funny:)
crash32953295@msn. 10th November 2008, 11:13 Quote
I think what he is saying is its been done in previous games ie character customisation.

tbh who cares
Mentai 10th November 2008, 11:20 Quote
Going on about it just makes him sound like a tosser, who really cares?
shigllgetcha 10th November 2008, 11:47 Quote
yeh know what you mean but by that (his own logic) nintendo implemented it first in this way so it would have been them invented it
liratheal 10th November 2008, 11:53 Quote
I tried to care, but I broke the strings on my minature violin.
p3n 10th November 2008, 11:57 Quote
surely compuserver made avatars first? :p (moving to 3d doesn't count m$ fanny)
Bauul 10th November 2008, 11:59 Quote
One word:

Diddums.
Gremlin 10th November 2008, 12:00 Quote
Quote:
Mattrick later goes on in the interview to claim that Microsoft has already won the online side of this generation, saying that other companies are only just starting to catch up with where the Xbox 360 was in 2002.

Wait there was an Xbox 360 in 2002? ;) i wish i had one back then :p
benjamyn 10th November 2008, 12:20 Quote
Should be titled
"Wii made avatars"

just to cause confusion :P
Whalemeister 10th November 2008, 12:26 Quote
yawn...
cjoyce1980 10th November 2008, 12:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gremlin
Quote:
Mattrick later goes on in the interview to claim that Microsoft has already won the online side of this generation, saying that other companies are only just starting to catch up with where the Xbox 360 was in 2002.

Wait there was an Xbox 360 in 2002? ;) i wish i had one back then :p

no the concept of an online identiy existed around then, and this was a part of the plan, but it only took nintendo and 6 years before microsoft put into action
ozstrike 10th November 2008, 12:33 Quote
Slow news day? :p
Cptn-Inafinus 10th November 2008, 12:51 Quote
This just sounds like Microsoft willy waggling if you ask me.

Also:
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
I tried to care, but I broke the strings on my minature violin.

I lol'd.
Sathy 10th November 2008, 12:57 Quote
Is it me reading funny or is this Don Mattrick fella so full of himself he is about to burst? Could do with a bit of slapping to come down from the cloud I'd say. Kind of pointless news too, but I guess a bit of gossip and slander keeps it more interesting.
ComputerKing 10th November 2008, 13:00 Quote
Microsoft GO TO HELL PLEASE :(
Veles 10th November 2008, 13:59 Quote
What does it matter who did it what first? If it's a good idea, no reason not to use it.
ssj12 10th November 2008, 14:27 Quote
real online winner this generation. Sony or Valve if we want to include PC.

Anyways, Miyamoto came up with the idea for the whole Mii thing in the SNES days. I doubt that this guy really thought up his avatars till Sony showed Home.
talladega 10th November 2008, 15:47 Quote
when will they ever get over their big egos?
scarrmrcc 10th November 2008, 16:46 Quote
well, if i say "hey wouldn't it be cool if we could scan ourselves then have that be our avatar in 3d? you know so our avatar looks exactly like us?" does that mean i invented it, and am a pioneer?

nope.
devdevil85 10th November 2008, 17:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattrick
There's one competitor, who I won't name, that I think we should send a card and a cake, because they're only just getting to where we were in 2002
I can only hope he was referring to Nintendo
Yemerich 10th November 2008, 17:27 Quote
Wasn't the avatar created in the ultima series in Ultima 4 "The quest of the avatar" in 1985?

Great game BTW :D
Nexxo 10th November 2008, 17:33 Quote
Doesn't matter whether you thought of it first --what matters is how well you executed the idea. Just ask Xerox PARC. ;)
Flibblebot 10th November 2008, 17:54 Quote
Too true.

Avatars are actually of religious significance: an avatar is the earthly manifestation of a god. The Greek and Hindu gods are both renowned for using avatars - so, MS, you're a few thousand years too late to claim you invented the avatar :p

And devdevil85, I think he's probably poking Sony with that comment ;)
devdevil85 10th November 2008, 18:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
And devdevil85, I think he's probably poking Sony with that comment ;)
You see, that's funny b/c:

Halo 3 = 16 maximum players online (w/ chargeable service)
Resistance 2 = 60 maximum players online (w/o chargeable service)

Also, COD4 360 = 18 maximum online (w/ chargeable service)
COD4 PS3 = 24 maximum online (w/o chargeable service)

MAG = 256 maximum players online (possible chargeable service)

I don't understand how Sony is "just getting to where [MS] was in 2002". Both offer a Video service, weekly updates, DLC, etc.

Really, the only thing that I can think of off the top of my head that you can't do on PSN that you can with XBL is talk to friends outside of the game that you are playing. Other than that everything's the same (please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, in terms of people saying PSN is slower, I call BS. I say this b/c I've played COD4, GTAIV & Warhawk online and only a couple of times (depending on people's internet connections who were hosting the game(s)) were they laggy so maybe 2% of my experience with PSN has been bad and I've had my fair share of experience with them considering I own both GTAIV and Warhawk....

Both versions of COD4 (360/PS3) have proved to be laggy at times, so I can't say one is better than the other either; though it's safe to say XBL is probably more stable considering there is less people that can play, but again idk....
TreeDude 10th November 2008, 20:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
And devdevil85, I think he's probably poking Sony with that comment ;)
You see, that's funny b/c:

Halo 3 = 16 maximum players online (w/ chargeable service)
Resistance 2 = 60 maximum players online (w/o chargeable service)

Also, COD4 360 = 18 maximum online (w/ chargeable service)
COD4 PS3 = 24 maximum online (w/o chargeable service)

MAG = 256 maximum players online (possible chargeable service)

I don't understand how Sony is "just getting to where [MS] was in 2002". Both offer a Video service, weekly updates, DLC, etc.

Really, the only thing that I can think of off the top of my head that you can't do on PSN that you can with XBL is talk to friends outside of the game that you are playing. Other than that everything's the same (please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, in terms of people saying PSN is slower, I call BS. I say this b/c I've played COD4, GTAIV & Warhawk online and only a couple of times (depending on people's internet connections who were hosting the game(s)) were they laggy so maybe 2% of my experience with PSN has been bad and I've had my fair share of experience with them considering I own both GTAIV and Warhawk....

Both versions of COD4 (360/PS3) have proved to be laggy at times, so I can't say one is better than the other either; though it's safe to say XBL is probably more stable considering there is less people that can play, but again idk....

COD4 only supports 18 people on the PS3. Get your facts strait. Also comparing different games that came out years apart is not fair. While XBL may cost a bit, you get what you pay for. You get a much larger online community (which you remain connected to, no matter what game your playing) and the best stat tracking around. Not to mention a far better selection of exclusive titles.
hodgy100 10th November 2008, 20:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDude
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
And devdevil85, I think he's probably poking Sony with that comment ;)
You see, that's funny b/c:

Halo 3 = 16 maximum players online (w/ chargeable service)
Resistance 2 = 60 maximum players online (w/o chargeable service)

Also, COD4 360 = 18 maximum online (w/ chargeable service)
COD4 PS3 = 24 maximum online (w/o chargeable service)

MAG = 256 maximum players online (possible chargeable service)

I don't understand how Sony is "just getting to where [MS] was in 2002". Both offer a Video service, weekly updates, DLC, etc.

Really, the only thing that I can think of off the top of my head that you can't do on PSN that you can with XBL is talk to friends outside of the game that you are playing. Other than that everything's the same (please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, in terms of people saying PSN is slower, I call BS. I say this b/c I've played COD4, GTAIV & Warhawk online and only a couple of times (depending on people's internet connections who were hosting the game(s)) were they laggy so maybe 2% of my experience with PSN has been bad and I've had my fair share of experience with them considering I own both GTAIV and Warhawk....

Both versions of COD4 (360/PS3) have proved to be laggy at times, so I can't say one is better than the other either; though it's safe to say XBL is probably more stable considering there is less people that can play, but again idk....

COD4 only supports 18 people on the PS3. Get your facts strait. Also comparing different games that came out years apart is not fair. While XBL may cost a bit, you get what you pay for. You get a much larger online community (which you remain connected to, no matter what game your playing) and the best stat tracking around. Not to mention a far better selection of exclusive titles.

thats opinion though isnt it....

I bought a PS3 because I prefer the games on PS3. The only xbox 360 exclusive games I like Gears of war and mass effect, and i can get them both on pc (bar Gears 2)
Red 5 10th November 2008, 20:49 Quote
Tron had the first avatar. He was inside the software!

Beat that if you can.

(Puts feet on coffee table, places hands behind head, lays back and farts majestically)

(Then awaits being proven wrong)
devdevil85 10th November 2008, 21:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDude
COD4 only supports 18 people on the PS3. Get your facts strait. Also comparing different games that came out years apart is not fair. While XBL may cost a bit, you get what you pay for. You get a much larger online community (which you remain connected to, no matter what game your playing) and the best stat tracking around. Not to mention a far better selection of exclusive titles.
"We had our best programmers on the PS3 [version of Call of Duty] and it shows," Infinity Ward studio head Vince Zampella has bellowed. He's been explaining why Sony's edition has a bigger online capacity (24 max players vs 360's 18) and, according to those with cyborg-eyes, improved visuals.

LINK btw: http://www.gamesradar.com/ps3/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare/news/cod4-dev-put-its-best-coders-on-ps3/a-2007112111543578009/g-2007042715365068067

My facts are straight (it's "straight" btw). What other games can I compare Resistance 2 to in regards to total number of online players? If you have any please provide some. From what I know, COD4 (idk about 5) is the only game on XBL that supports up to 18 players. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, could you please prove how the stat tracking is "better" (doesn't that depend on the game itself that you are playing)?, and in regards to "far better selection of exclusives" (just as hodgy100 said, that is your opinion and I think both systems offer just as many "good" exclusives.....
Ninja_182 10th November 2008, 22:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85

*snip*

This isnt even on topic.

Why on earth did he decide to point this out? It's trivial at best, Do people really care who invented something like that first?
devdevil85 11th November 2008, 00:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja_182
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85

*snip*

This isnt even on topic.
Sure it is. Did you even read all the forum posts? I have not gone off topic. I questioned the guys statement regarding [some company who he wouldn't name, but one that Flibblebot said was Sony] being where [MS] was in 2002. I stated my reasoning as to why that would IMO be wrong.
PhenomRed 11th November 2008, 05:33 Quote
Comes across as an arrogant tosser
talladega 11th November 2008, 06:08 Quote
Isn't Xbox LIVE games all on P2P servers?

While all 1st Party Sony games are on dedicated servers. hmmmmmm..........

Anyways, wasnt PS2 the first console to have online voice chat, friends lists, download content (SOCOM)?


either way, both PS3 and 360's online are so similar it really makes no difference between the two. I just prefer not to pay $50/year.
sui_winbolo 11th November 2008, 07:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComputerKing
Microsoft GO TO HELL PLEASE :(

Yes, someone at Microsoft claiming they invented something is a perfect reason to damn the whole company to hell. :p

Lol, I yawned at how unimportant claiming the rights to an online avatar is.

But you can't deny Microsoft has the best online experience in the console market.

The next generation of consoles, however, will give the Xbox a run for their money with online communities.

Though I must say, I'm really interested in seeing how Playstation Home pans out. It looks really interesting.
notatoad 11th November 2008, 08:19 Quote
wait, wait, wait, is he saying that the character in "the sims" was an avatar? in that case aren't all playable characters in all games avatars? i hardly think the sims was the first game to have characters.

whoever this guy is, he comes across as a pathetic little wiener, desperate for a little bit of attention so he can prove to himself that he is important. shame on you bit for giving it to him.
[USRF]Obiwan 11th November 2008, 08:36 Quote
My vote goes to populous for being the first to use 3d avatars.
[USRF]Obiwan 11th November 2008, 08:38 Quote
No better yet, Gauntlet..

No Ikari wariors..

Hell every late 70's arcade was sooner then Microsoft with their black/white dos
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums